The White House has just thrown some deep shade in response to a Wall Street Journalop-ed that suggests that the administration’s recent decision directing schools to allow trans kids to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity is rooted in a “preoccupation with sex.”

The Washington Times was on hand to get the response from White House press secretary Josh Earnest and, well, it was a read for the ages:

“It’s Republicans in the Congress that have created a special congressional committee to take a look at Planned Parenthood,” Mr. Earnest said. “It’s Republicans who have sued the administration over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, including as it relates to women being able to get access to their birth control.”

He said the editorial’s accusation was “curious” and didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Repeat after us: sexuality and gender identity are two different things.

We’ll be glad when people (finally) get the memo, and we’re going to have to side with Earnest on this one.

It’s laughable that the party that has spent the better part of 30+ years trying to police women’s bodies accuses the Obama Administration of being sex-obsessed for attempting to help trans kids be themselves.

But then again, this is the kind of stupidity we’ve come to expect from the GOP, where their actions are constantly inconsistent with what they claim to believe.

Earnest has their number, as does anyone who’s paying attention this election year.

Get Queerty Daily

2 Comments

Earnest’s answer probably went over some listeners’ heads, but his point was a good one. Lots of people conflate sex, sexuality and gender, and conservatives in particular seem frightened of sex, sexuality, and non-conforming gender representation and behavior. Just keep an eye on every man who claims that trans women are going to harm little girls. They’re projecting!

People repress a racial minority group, so we enact laws to protect that racial minority. We get accused of making laws to enact “special rights” for racial minority groups; we “start the debate” about race. That’s a good thing!
To generalize…
People repress a minority group, so we enact laws to protect that minority. We get accused of making laws to enact “special rights” for types of ; we “start the debate” about . That’s a good thing!

Josh Earnest is right, but it’s also true that laws to protect people push the discussion and eventual (positive) resolution. It goes both ways—the repressors will respond when their right to repress is put in jeopardy. That’s okay.